The agreement of this case constitutes losses and does not constitute expenses paid without connection to the business.

Since it is reasonable to include the agreement of this case paid by the Plaintiff in the deductible expenses as ordinary expenses generally acceptable, the disposition imposing tax on the expenses not related to the business is unreasonable.

The contents of the judgment are the same as the attachment.

Article 19 of the former Corporate Tax Act

2014Guhap32725 Corporate Tax Revocation of Disposition

[Defendant] Corporation*

The Director of Incheon Tax Office

June 5, 2015

July 3, 2015

1. On December 3, 2012, the Defendant revoked each imposition of KRW 20,70,860, corporate tax for the business year 2007 against the Plaintiff, KRW 25,38,730, corporate tax for the business year 2008, corporate tax for the business year 2009, KRW 3,498,056,670, corporate tax for the business year 2009, KRW 18,631,550, and corporate tax for the business year 2010, KRW 18,734, and KRW 130 for the business year 2011.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

"A. The plaintiff was a corporation established for the purpose of the development, manufacture, and sale of computers and software on January 9, 1998, and operated AAA'stoBBBB B, a web site from April 1, 2002 to XI.9, and from April 1, 201, XBBB, the Internet web site." However, the site of this case was operated by the member who installed the exclusive web reservoir, making the unlimited online contents available for 15 days, so that the members who want to start online contents can store them free of charge at the web site located in the virtual storage space, and the site of this case function as a tool for sharing online contents by allowing members who want to download them using the exclusive web reservoir at any place where the Internet access is possible. The site of this case was divided into user fees and 4-6BBBBBBB, and 19 won and 15 days of online contents by using the exclusive web reservoir.

C. However, the members of the website of this case set up online contents such as motion pictures, music, cartoons, etc. on the website of this case without obtaining permission to use the online contents from those who hold the author's property rights of online contents so that the users can download them to the public. The above online contents are downloaded by other members and stored them on personal hard disks, and there were problems of infringing the author's property rights such as the right of reproduction (Article 2 subparagraphs 22 and 16 of the Copyright Act) and the right of public transmission (Article 2 subparagraphs 7 and 10, and Article 18 of the Copyright Act), which are 010.10.10.10.20.20.10.20.20.10.20.10.20.20.20.30.10.30.30.0.30.0.

"라. 관련 형사사건에 더하여 저작재산권자들이 원고에 대하여 저작재산권 침해를 이유로 한 손해배상청구의 소를 제기하는 등 법적 대응의 태세를 보이자，원고는 2009. 3. 26.부터 2009. 11.경까지 한국방송공사，주식회사 문화방송，주식회사 에스비에스, 주식회사 학산문화사，대원씨아이 주식회사, 주식회사 서울문화사，사단법인 한국음원 제작자협회，사단법인 한국영화제작가협회，사단법인 한국 영상산업 협회 등 저작재산권 자들과 합의하고，이들에게 아래 표 기재와 같이 합의금(이하이 사건 합의금비라 한 다)을 지급하였다.",마. 원고와 위 저작재산권자들 사이에 ^ &^저작물의 불법 유통 방지를 위한 합의 서 B ^합의서z 확인서' 등의 제목으로 각 체결된 합의의 공통적인 내용은, 원고가 이 사건 사이트에서 일어난 저작재산권 침해의 불법행위에 대한 방호의 책임을 인정하고，그로 인한 금전적 피해를 배상하며，향후 저작재산권을 보호하면서 상호 신뢰를 바탕으로 원고와 저작재산권자의 이익에 부합하는 협력관계를 형성하자는 것이다. 원고가 위와 같은 합의를 진행할 당시 원고와 같은 종류의 인터넷 웹하드 서비스 사업을 영위 하는 대부분의 업체들이 저작재산권자들과 위와 대동소이한 내용으로 합의하였다.

"바. 한편, 최**은 원고 설립 당시부터 현재까지 원고의 비상근 감사로 재직 중인 자인데, 원고는 최**에게 2007년 52,400,000원, 2008년 67,600,000원，2009년 70,400,000^, 2010년 66,000,000^, 2011년 72,650,000원 등 합계 329,050,000원의 보 수(이하 '이 사건 감사보수'라 한다)를 지급하였다.",사, 원고는 이 사건 합의금 및 감사보수를 손금으로 산입하여 각 귀속 사업연도의 법인세를 신고 납부하였는데, 피고는 원고에 대한 세무조사를 실시한 후 2012. 12. 3, 원고에게 이 사건 합의금은 저작권법위반을 방조한 고의 또는 중과실로 인한 비용이라 는 이유로，이 사건 감사보수는 감사 직무를 수행한 사실이 없는 자에 대하여 업무와 관련 없이 지급한 비용이라는 이유로 각각 손금불산입을 한 다음 원고에게 2007 사업 연도 법인세 20,700,860원，2008 사업연도 법인세 25,388,730원，2009 사업연도 법인세 3,498,056,670원，2010 사업연도 법인세 18,631,550원，2011 사업연도 법인세 18,734,130원을 각 경정 고지(이하 이 사건 처분끼라 한다)하였다.

H. On January 21, 2013, the Plaintiff was dissatisfied with the instant disposition and requested to the Tax Tribunal for an inquiry, and was dismissed on August 20, 2014.

[The facts without dispute over recognition, Gap evidence 1 to 5, evidence 2, 3, evidence 4-1 to 5, evidence 5-1, 2, evidence 11 through 13, and evidence 1 to 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

Inasmuch as the instant agreement is not listed as non-deductible items under the Corporate Tax Act, and all of the requirements for recognition of deductible expenses, such as business relevance, revenue-relatedness, and commerce, all of them should be recognized as deductible expenses. * as the actual auditor performs his duties, the audit fees in this case should also be recognized as deductible expenses.

(b) Entry in the attached Form of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

C. Determination

1) As to the instant agreed amount

Article 19 (1) of the Corporate Tax Act provides that "in principle, deductible expenses shall be the amount of losses incurred from transactions that reduce the net assets of the relevant corporation." Paragraph (2) provides that " grandchildren shall, in principle, be losses or expenses incurred in connection with the business of the relevant corporation which are generally accepted as normal or directly related to profit." In this context, other corporations engaged in the same kind of business as taxpayers are also deemed to have disbursed under the same situation. Whether such expenses are included in deductible expenses shall be determined objectively in light of the following circumstances: (a) the expenses that were paid in violation of private order should be excluded from deductible expenses (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du12422, Nov. 12, 2009); (b) the expenses that were paid in violation of social order should be determined based on the overall circumstances such as the process and purpose of spending, the impact of such expenses on the trade; (c) the need for social criticism in the future; and (d) the possibility and possibility of the regulation in the future.

A) The instant site operation business operated by the Plaintiff is basically a business providing Internet virtual storage space and directly distributing copyrighted works. Moreover, despite its net function, the Plaintiff, despite its positive function, excluded from the interests of the author’s property rights holders, thereby inducing the infringement of author’s property rights by some hedges; however, it is difficult to deem that the instant site operation business itself has an anti-social nature that is essential for legal prohibition, and therefore, it does not constitute expenses paid in violation of social order solely on the ground that the instant agreement was paid as compensation for damages.

B) The site of this case is considerably legitimate online contents, other than various kinds of online contents or obscene materials, which are not permitted to use by the holder of author's property rights, and illegal data, and the contents and legality of these online contents are determined by the users who are engaged in business first. The plaintiff can prevent users' infringement of author's property rights by preventing the use of online contents files identified as illegal online contents, or by preventing them from being engaged in business or downloading them by creating a gold regulation or comparing the sea value registration. It cannot be evaluated that the plaintiff who failed to perform that role as the operator of the site of this case is jack and paying the amount of this case to the holder of author's property rights, and the possibility of social criticism is significant.

C) The agreement of this case is aimed at compensating the Plaintiff for the damages suffered by the Plaintiff’s author’s property right holder and developing the site of this case, which functions as an online content circulation counter because it does not function as an online virtual storage space, and to that purport, the same company has agreed with the Plaintiff with the content similar to the Plaintiff. In order to continue the site operation business of this case lawfully, it was necessary to train online content distribution, the reality that the distribution of copyrighted works through the Internet is generalized, and the change in the demand for obtaining copyrighted works through the Internet is considered, and the agreement of this case is recognized as having business relevance and consistency as expenses that are inevitable for the Plaintiff’s normal business operator operating the same type of business as the Plaintiff to disburse for its business and profit.

D) The Defendant asserts that the agreement in this case is an expense for expenses for illegal income (income gained from aiding and abetting violation of the Copyright Act) and cannot be considered as ordinary expenses generally acceptable. However, the agreement in this case merely provides for damages separately from the income already acquired, and thus, it cannot be evaluated as unlawful expenses in order to obtain illegal income. Furthermore, the Corporate Tax Act comprehensively provides for the scope of inclusion in deductible expenses and deductible expenses in the calculation of deductible expenses in the calculation of deductible expenses, and special provisions stipulate each item of inclusion in deductible expenses and deductible expenses in the calculation of deductible expenses. In general, reducing the total amount of deductible expenses should be deemed as deductible expenses unless it is listed in the calculation of deductible expenses, and in principle, there is no provision denying the inclusion of illegal expenses in deductible expenses in the calculation of deductible expenses in order to obtain illegal income, and in principle, corporate tax should be taxed according to the taxable capacity regardless of whether it has been prohibited under other Acts and subordinate statutes, and it is reasonable to accept the Defendant’s assertion that it is unlawful in order to obtain illegal income as expenses or deductible expenses.

E) The defendant asserts that the plaintiff is entitled to receive compensation from users pursuant to Article 750 of the Civil Code, and that it should be included in the calculation of earnings because the plaintiff can exercise the right to indemnity pursuant to Article 756(3) of the Civil Code, **, etc., but it cannot be considered that the above claim claimed by the defendant was equipped with or confirmed with assets to the extent that it can be included in the calculation of earnings, and such inclusion in earnings is made when the claim is realized later, so the reasons asserted by the defendant cannot be the grounds for justifying the disposition of this case.

2) As to the audit remuneration of this case

Under Article 26 of the Corporate Tax Act, and Article 43 (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the amount deemed excessive or unjust of the personnel expenses paid by the corporation to its officers and employees (the remuneration, salary and allowances, bonuses, pension or retirement allowances, and other similar salaries) shall not be included in the calculation of losses, and the remuneration paid by a corporation to officers and employees who are not full time shall be included in the calculation of losses except where it falls under the denial of wrongful calculation under Article 52 of the Corporate Tax Act. On the other hand, "where the transaction between the parties with special interest includes the transaction between the shareholders and their relatives (Article 87 (1) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act), and where it is deemed that the tax burden has been reduced unreasonably," the money shall be included without compensation (Article 88 (1) 6 of the Corporate Tax Act).

The defendant stated the minutes of the above general meeting of shareholders and the minutes of the board of directors as the last*** in the seal box of the participant, the last*** at the time of the tax investigation against the plaintiff was unable to submit objective data that can be recognized that the plaintiff performed the audit work normally, and last*** is a shareholder who owns 1,000 shares of the plaintiff's total issued 5,00 shares and 1,000 shares and the last*'s spouse, the largest shareholder**'s spouse, etc., as the grounds for non-taxation in relation to audit fees of this case. However, these circumstances alone do not prove that the payment to the plaintiff was the only non-standing auditor **** at the time of the establishment of the plaintiff, and there is no evidence to support this. In addition, the defendant did not prove specific arguments as to the circumstances that it is difficult to include some of these excessive audit fees as losses of the plaintiff at least.

Therefore, it cannot be concluded that the entire audit fees of this case exceed ordinary expenses generally accepted, or they are subject to the avoidance of wrongful calculation and thus fall under non-deductible expenses under the corporate tax law, and in conclusion, the part of the disposition of this case which non-deductible the audit fees as non-deductible expenses is illegal.

3) Sub-decisions

Therefore, the disposition of this case must be revoked in any manner, which is deemed to be a mother and illegal.

3. Conclusion

Since the plaintiff's claim is well-grounded, it is decided to accept all of them, and it is also decided like the order.